Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Lay-Run Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester

Posts Tagged ‘Liturgy’

Chalk It Up To Whimsy, I Suppose

July 22nd, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

A short while ago, we posted several clips from the recent Requiem Mass for Otto von Hapsburg, a Mass celebrated in the Ordinary Form (i.e. Novus Ordo), but done so according to all the norms provided by the liturgy documents. There was not one potentially-illicit aspect of the Mass, because it was offered in a spirit of humility and obedience. Someone once told me, perhaps it was even a commenter here, that “if a priest cannot be obedient to the Mass, he cannot be expected to be obedient to anything or anyone else.”

So, naturally, this made me start thinking about the whole liturgy debate. I have a love for good liturgy, no matter what Rite or what Form, just so long as it is offered for the greater glory of God. And, evidently, Cardinal Schönborn does as well. But before we go any further, let’s just look at the following two clips and discern which one reflects the timelessness of the Mass and the splendor of the Heavenly worship of God by the saints and angels:

2011 Requiem Mass for Otto von Habusburg:

2008 Youth Mass:

I should point out a few things for the sake of fairness. Perhaps the Cardinal was somewhat forced to do the latter Mass, not informed before-hand as to what it would entail. And, in addition to this, at least the young people were attentive and engaged at the Mass . . .
But guess what, folks? It’s still wildly inappropriate. Contrary to what some diocesan middle-school religion teachers tell their students, the Mass is a re-enactment of the sacrifice of Calvary, as made possible and whole by Our Lord’s Resurrection the following Sunday. It is not a celebration of the empty tomb. It is not a celebration of the community. It is not a celebration of diversity. It is a holy sacrifice, a celebration, which is intimately united with the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Son of God. Okay, great, the young people were in church (sorry, I mean “worship space,”) and participated in the Mass. Do you think that any one of them actually realized that? I can just imagine one of these teens coming home and saying to his mother, “Hey, mom, I went to this awesome concert last night, but OMG, some really retro old guy was talking to a piece of bread – the dude held up the concert for like 5 minutes! . . . Oh, that was Mass? Are you sure? SNAP! I’m set till Christmas then!”

All kidding aside, these two Masses demonstrate what is wrong with the Church at the moment. You have people reading the documents of Vatican II and interpreting them how they themselves would have them interpreted. But these things are not up for “interpretation,” but instead, are to be implemented without bias. Dove-tailing with Bernie’s recent post about “Before and After,” I must say that even though the second video, the Youth Mass, is what appears to be in the “Spirit of Vatican II,” the former video, the Habusburg Requiem, is more in keeping, nay, is almost perfectly in keeping, with the true Spirit of Vatican II. It looks older and feels older because, guess what – it’s supposed to. The Mass is not supposed to be something socially-relevant to every successive generation, but something timeless which transcends and binds them all together.

One final thought, if you’ll indulge me: as I re-watched both of these videos, I was struck by a line from “A Man for All Seasons” which was spoken by Thomas More about his soon-to-be son-in-law Will Roper. Like the Cardinal, he had the right overarching idea, but his approach to achieving and perfecting it was always changing, and changing dynamically, at that. When Roper asks for the hand of More’s daughter in marriage, More refuses on the grounds that Roper is a heretic (which, at that moment, he was). However, he tacks on this statement which has a great deal of relevance to this post about these two approaches to the “Spirit of Vatican II”:

“We must just  pray that, when your head’s finished turning, your face is to the front again.”

Requiem Mass for Otto von Habsburg

July 17th, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

Otto von Habsburg, the last Crown Prince of Austria (heir to the throne after the Emperor), died ealier this month. He was a tireless defender of Catholicism and the Church, and was a lion in European politics. These videos are from his Requiem Mass offered by Cardinal Schönborn, and . . . well, just watch. It’s amazing, and words cannot convey the magnitude and majesty of this Requiem.

Kindergartners Defending Latin in the Liturgy

July 5th, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

If only our Diocesan officials and occasional commenter would reach the level of these dear children . . .

Well, I can dream, can’t I?

“Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings thou hast perfected praise, because of thy enemies, that thou mayst destroy the enemy and the avenger.” (Psalm 8:3)

Altar Rail Returning to Use

July 3rd, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

The following is from the National Catholic Register:

(I have only bolded some key points. There is no need to offer commentary on something this well-outlined.)

Altar Rail Returning to Use

Architects, pastors and parishioners find it enhances reverence in church.

BY JOSEPH PRONECHEN

In Tiverton, R.I., when some parishioners suggested returning altar rails to the sanctuary of Holy Ghost Catholic Church, Father Jay Finelli gladly accepted, little knowing shortly thereafter the Pope’s 2007 motu proprio letter Summorum Pontificum would follow and he would be interested in learning how to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass.

In Norwalk, Conn., when a groundswell of parishioner support encouraged pastor Father Greg Markey to restore St. Mary Church, the second-oldest parish in the diocese, to its original 19th-century neo-gothic magnificence, he made sure altar rails were again part of the sanctuary.

Altar rails are present in several new churches architect Duncan Stroik has designed. Among them, the Thomas Aquinas College Chapel in Santa Paula, Calif., the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wis., and three others on the drawing boards.

Altar (Communion) rails are returning for all the right reasons.

Said Father Markey: “First, the Holy Father is requiring holy Communion from him be received on the knees. Second, it’s part of our tradition as Catholics for centuries to receive holy Communion on the knees. Third, it’s a beautiful form of devotion to our blessed Lord.”

James Hitchcock, professor and author of Recovery of the Sacred (Ignatius Press, 1995), thinks the rail resurgence is a good idea. The main reason is reverence, he said. “Kneeling’s purpose is to facilitate adoration,” he explained.

When Stroik proposed altar rails for the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, “Cardinal [Raymond] Burke liked the idea and thought that was something that would give added reverence to the Eucharist and sanctuary.”

In Eastern Orthodox churches, there is an iconostasis — a wall of icons and religious paintings that separate the nave from the sanctuary — rather than altar rail separating the sanctuary. While the altar rail is usually about two feet high, the iconostasis veils most of the sanctuary.

“The altar rail is nothing compared to that,” he says, “and these are our Eastern brethren. We can benefit and learn something.”

Altar Rail History

They may be returning, but were altar rails supposed to be taken out of sanctuaries?

“There is nothing in Vatican II or post-conciliar documents which mandate their removal,” said Denis McNamara, author of Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy (Hillenbrand Books, 2009) and assistant director and professor at the Liturgical Institute of the University of Saint Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill.

Cardinal Francis Arinze strongly affirmed this point during a 2008 video session while he was still prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments: “The Church from Rome never said to remove the altar rails.”

So what happened?

“Unfortunately, democratic ideas came into the situation after Vatican II,” Hitchcock said.

Stroik points some out of these ideas: a general iconoclasm that rejected the past, a desire to make churches into gathering spaces more like Protestant meeting houses, and the argument that kneeling is a sign of submission, which is seen as disrespectful to the modern person — we didn’t kneel before kings and queens, so it was more “democratic” not to kneel.

Added McNamara: “Some people called them ‘fences’ which set up division between priest and people.” (Remember what the IPPG said about the communion rail at St. Thomas?)

“Of course,” he said, “theologically there is a significant meaning in the distinction between nave and sanctuary. Just as there was confusion over the roles of ordained and laity at the time, so there was confusion about the architectural manifestation of those roles.”
Altar rails give “a clear designation as to what is the sanctuary,” Father Markey said. “The word ‘sanctuary’ comes from the word ‘holy,’ which means ‘set apart.’ The sanctuary is set apart from the rest of the church because it reinforces our understanding of what holiness is. The sanctuary is symbolically the head of the church and represents Christ as the head.”

McNamara traces church architecture roots to the Temple of Solomon: The large room corresponded to the church nave; the Holy of Holies, an image of heaven, corresponded to today’s sanctuary. They were separated visually by the great veil, which was torn when Christ died.

“[The altar rail] is still a marker of the place where heaven and earth meet, indicating that they are not yet completely united,” McNamara explained.

“But, at the same time, the rail is low, very permeable, and has a gate, so it does not prevent us from participating in heaven. So we could say there is a theology of the rail, one which sees it as more than a fence, but as a marker where heaven and earth meet, where the priest, acting in persona Christi, reaches across from heaven to earth to give the Eucharist as the gift of divine life.”

Reverence at Mass

Altar rails have an important role for the extraordinary form of the Mass where, Father Finelli noted, reception of Communion has to be on the tongue. He celebrates the extraordinary form weekly in Advent and Lent and monthly the rest of the year.
Communicants kneel at the oak railing that was crafted by a parishioner who is a professional woodworker. The rail was gilded by parishioners. They crafted a similar altar rail for the adoration chapel.

The presence of the rails has made an impression on the 2,000-family parish. “So many people kept requesting to use the altar rail,” he recalled, “I decided at the beginning of Lent that people receive at the altar rail.” (The requirement is for all weekday and special feast Masses in the ordinary form too.)

Given the option to kneel or stand, many choose to kneel to receive Communion. While they can receive on the tongue or in the hand, more people are choosing to receive on the tongue.

As Father Finelli put it, “It’s a very strong sign for the love and respect for the Real Presence because it’s really Jesus we’re receiving.”

Father Finelli clarifies that for Latin Catholics to receive the Eucharist while standing and in the hand is an indult, a special permission granted by the Holy See, because the ordinary way by Church law is still to receive while kneeling and on the tongue. (The indult was granted at the request of the American bishops.)

While the extraordinary form is celebrated three times weekly at St. Mary’s in Connecticut, Father Markey says the Communion rails are used for all ordinary form Masses as well. In his 1,000-family parish, parishioners also have the option at the ordinary form to kneel or stand.

This is approved by Rome. He notes the Vatican directive: “In 2003 the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments says in the ordinary form ‘communicants who chose to kneel are not to be denied holy Communion … nor accused of disobedience …’”

Stroik designed St. Mary’s renovated sanctuary incorporating hand-carved marble neo-gothic altar rails with brass gates that Father Markey purchased from a church that was closing in Pennsylvania. It beautifully matches the original white marble fixed altar and new marble free-standing altar, which brings another dimension to liturgical symbolism.

“When we gather at the altar rails, we symbolically gather at the altar,” Stroik said.

Making both altar and rails from the same materials — in this case marble — makes the connection even clearer.

Liturgical architecture expert McNamara agrees. He has found that some old church architecture books consider the rail the “people’s altar” and thus was made with the same marble as that of the altar.
To add to the symbolic connection, some churches cover the rails during Communion with linens similar to those on the altar.

Drawn to Prayer

There are yet more reasons for incorporating altar rails. Stroik finds where they have been removed in a cathedral, basilica or historic church receiving numerous visitors, many don’t know how sacred the altar is and wander around the sanctuary. The church has to put up ropes and signs like in a museum to do what altar rails were supposed to do: “create a real threshold so people can tell it’s a special place, a holy place set apart.”
Stroik says the altar rail is “an invitation for people to come close to the sanctuary, kneel and pray before the tabernacle, a statue of Our Lady or images of saints.”

Father Markey said returning the rails has been a great success.
Longtime parishioners who have attended St. Mary’s for 50 years or more regretted the magnificent altar rail being torn out in the 1960s. They now tell him, “Thank God you brought it back, Father.”

He also notices worship is enhanced for adults as well as children: “Little children like to kneel and pray there while their mom and dad receive holy Communion,” said Father Markey. “There’s almost universal embracing. It’s one of the most popular decisions I’ve made as pastor.”

On the Cusp of a Liturgical Revolution

June 21st, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

Since the often-sloppy implementation of the Second Vatican Council’s decrees regarding sacred liturgy, the English-speaking world has been subjected to a Mass devoid of any depth of language and vocabulary. Many nations and peoples adopted vernacular Masses, but did so with proper attention to the original language of the Roman Missal, and wrote their own orders of worship using appropriate language. Indeed, when considering all the languages in which the Mass is offered, it is baffling to see that English stands out as being the most poorly-translated of all of them. There is no possible way that “et cum spiritu tuo” can be translated as “and also with you.” Whenever I say that response, all I can imagine is some slovenly wretch with a chili-dog in his hand saying “and wit’ you too, fadda.”

However, thanks be to God, the USCCB has decided that we may embrace the new translation of the Roman Missal two months earlier than originally thought. The following comes from their website:

BELLEVUE, Washington—Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Divine Worship, announced that diocesan bishops may permit the gradual introduction of the musical settings of the people’s parts of the Mass from the new Roman Missal in September. Primarily this affects the  the Gloria, the Holy, Holy, Holy and the Memorial Acclamations.

This variation to the implementation of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, set to take place all at once on November 27, was authorized by USCCB president, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, and adopted by the committee to allow parish communities to learn the various parts of the new translation “in a timely fashion and an even pace.”

The Committee on Divine Worship made the decision in response to requests from several bishops, echoed by the National Advisory Council. Some suggested that the various acclamations could be more effectively introduced throughout the fall, so that when the full Missal is implemented on the First Sunday of Advent, the congregation will have already become familiar with the prayers that are sung.
“I ask you to encourage this as a means of preparing our people and helping them embrace the new translation,” Archbishop Gregory told the bishops. The announcement took place June 16, during the U.S. bishops Spring Assembly near Seattle.

This is a very wise decision. One reason is that the Gloria, one of the “ordinaries” of the Mass (along with the Kyrie, Sanctus, Credo, and Agnus Dei) will now be experienced before Advent’s arrival and the dropping of the Gloria until Christmas. By granting permission to implement the new translation this early, the United States joins several other areas in the English-speaking world that have already begun to use it. England and Wales have also decided on the September start date, as opposed to the Advent one.

Something that will be seen in the new Roman Missal is increased attention paid to the “propers” of the Mass. “Propers” are scriptural extracts that are proper (thus the name) to the specific weekend or feast on which they ought to be recited. There are several different places where propers are to be used:

  • Introit – basically an entrance song, chanted or sung as the priest and other ministers enter the sanctuary
  • Gradual – this was the predecessor of the Responsorial Psalm. The option exists to chant this in lieu of the Responsorial Psalm, something wholly advisable given the fact that many psalm settings are abusive to the ear and the soul.
  • Alleluia – if using the propers, as found in the Graduale Romanum, you will note that every Sunday has its own setting of the Alleluia.
  • Offertorio - oddly enough, sung during the Offertory of the Mass when the gifts are prepared.
  • Communio – sung during the distribution of Communion. Baffling naming system, isn’t it?

The use of propers is encouraged by the Holy Father and the documents of Vatican II. Unfortunately, most parishes opted for communally-sung hymns instead of the specified propers of the Mass, seeing as how Gregorian Chant is seldom something that one can pick up with ease. Also, the use of hymns was allowed in order to draw the faithful into a more active and conscious participation at Mass. But ask yourself the following questions: 1. At your church, does the entire congregation actually sing the hymns? 2. Do your hymns actually reflect the total message of the Mass on any particular weekend? 3. What do you take away from singing a “hymn sandwich,” with a processional, an offertory hymn, a communion hymn, and a recessional? 4. While singing these hymns (doubtless they’ve been picked by your parish’s liturgy committee), do you actually feel edified and prayerful, or does it strike you as liturgical busy-work?

The use of propers answers all of these questions, seeing as how for the vast majority of the Church’s 2,000 year history, the propers were sung at Mass instead of hymns. They have their roots, not in some Medieval or Renaissance council or synod, but in the songs sung in the Temple in Jerusalem, songs sung by Our Lord Himself. The richness of these propers is really quite stunning, and I firmly believe that if they are reintroduced into our Masses, we will find ourselves tremendously more engaged in the Sacred Mysteries. After all, no matter how well you sing “All Creatures of Our God and King,” it’s still just a hymn that may or may not have a similar theme to the readings of the day. I am not denying that hymns can mirror and magnify the prayerfulness of Mass through interpreting the readings, but they will always be the option less-preferred in the eyes of the Church. Indeed, Vatican II asked for a revival of Gregorian Chant (see here).

But, alas, the propers are probably too daunting for any parish to just pick up and start singing this Sunday. After all, they’re in Latin, and have all these dots and squiggles and zigzags that don’t seem to make much sense. If only there was a simpler option, one that would couple nicely and naturally with the new translation of the Roman Missal . . .

Oh, that’s right. There is!

The Church Music Association of America has just published a book called “Simple English Propers,” which contains the propers of the entire year in English. The Catholic Phoenix reports on this publication:

A parish music director in Phoenix has recently completed a major project in the renewal of sacred music, one that could have a revolutionary impact upon the celebration of the Ordinary form of the Mass all over the English-speaking world, as the latter prepares for the renewal of sacred language on its way this winter, courtesy of the new translation of the OF Roman Missal.

Adam Bartlett, director of music at St. Joan of Arc parish, is the composer and compiler of the Simple English Propers, an anthology of music for the Mass that is unlike anything else available in English today.  The book, a 500-page hardback, has just been published by the Church Music Association of America (CMAA); in keeping with the radical and principled open-source, creative-commons intellectual-property-libertarianism of the CMAA and its tutelary genius Jeffrey Tucker, the entire “Simple English Propers” corpus is also available for free download.

In order for readers to understand why the Simple English Propers are so important, a brief introduction to some technical aspects of music in the Catholic Mass is in order.

The experience of most  Sunday massgoers in America has for decades been one of music as something added to the Mass but not integral or essential to it—so while the words of the liturgy itself are prescribed by the Missal, and the psalms and readings for every day of the three-year cycle are dictated by the Lectionary, one generally gets the sense that when it comes to music, the Catholic Mass is a blank canvas, an empty decorative space to be filled up by the wits and talents of the parish music ministry.

With four such hymn “slots” to be filled each Sunday—from the entrance and offertory, through the communion to the recessional—American Catholics’ experience is that songs at Mass are something freely chosen by the music director.  From choir-and-organ arrangements of “Soul of My Savior” to rockin’ Matt Maher tunes to “Gather Us In” to “God Bless America” or other special numbers on holidays, what we get week in and week out can be, like radio programming, interesting, varied, eclectic, coherent, or not.  This programming model of music as a freely chosen, extraneous addition to worship is nearly universal, and, from what authorities like Thomas Day, author of Why Catholics Can’t Sing, tell us, it is deeply rooted in pre-Vatican II American Catholicism.  We might have a lot more choices now than we did in 1959, but the model is the same—picking tunes off the nickel jukebox, downloading the playlist.

If American Catholics have had any Sunday experience of Gregorian chant, outside of chanted “ordinary” texts like the Sanctus or Agnus Dei, that experience has likely been within the same model of freely chosen music inserted into the liturgy, as one option selected from among others: perhaps one special week out of twenty, the choir chants an unaccompanied Regina coeli for the “meditation” piece after communion; or, if it’s Pentecost, maybe Veni Sancte Spiritus in the same slot.  But not too much chant: back to “Faith of Our Fathers” or something else rousing for the recessional.

While the music-as-choice model is ubiquitous, and technically “allowed” according to the General Instruction for the Roman Missal, a different and much older model of Catholic sacred music is the ideal, described and advocated in all Roman magisterial documents on liturgy in the 20th century, including Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium. The model is simple: just sing the integral proper chants of the Mass, the prescribed Latin texts and ancient Gregorian melodies contained in the official music book of the Catholic Church, the Graduale Romanum, or “Roman Gradual.”  No choices needed:  4 different Gregorian chants for every single Mass of the entire year, with words and music compiled in a normative Roman liturgical book.

Most lay Catholics, not to mention parish musicians and clergy, are not even aware of the existence of the Roman Gradual—but even if there were two dozen copies of it in every choir loft (or “musicians’ space” at the front of more progressive churches), learning to sing these ancient Latin texts and intricate, exotic melodies would be an extremely daunting task for even the most healthy of parish music programs.  There is simply no living tradition of Gregorian chant to be found anywhere near all but a handful of our parish churches.  Without it, the Roman ideal remains a dream for some and simply inconceivable for most.  Wishing it were otherwise—that there was a culture of Latin chant in our parishes just as vibrant as you’d find in a French Benedictine monastery—isn’t enough to conjure it up.  What, then, is to be done?

This is where the Simple English Propers come in.  This revolutionary anthology, the first of its kind, contains English-language translations of all the ancient Latin liturgical chants of the Roman Gradual, set to simplified melodies adapted from the originals; unlike the daunting, technically complex lines of the Gregorian chants, a week’s worth of these adapted melodies can be easily mastered by a parish choir of average competence in a week’s time, and new ones sung with confidence and clarity in the assembly Sunday after Sunday.

What is most revolutionary about the Simple English Propers anthology is that it offers a way to a different model of sacred music, one in which there are no “songs”, no extraneous, independent musical compositions stuck into the silent slots in the liturgy, no need for a music director to program the week’s playlist according to his wits or whims.  Instead of our own choices and preferences, the SEP gives us a way to sing the Roman Church’s ancient songs, texts that have been fully integrated into the Roman Mass for centuries–unlike, say, “Amazing Grace,” “Come Thou Long-Expected Jesus,” or “America the Beautiful.”

As one liturgist recently put it: truly sacred music means not singing “at” Mass, but singing the Mass itself. The Simple English Propers present a comprehensible and technically feasible way for the average American parish to move off the beaches, where previously there had existed only the sheer cliffs of the Graduale Romanum. Thanks to Adam Bartlett and the CMAA for making this possible.

A Tale of Two Masses – Part II: Good Liturgy Done Poorly

June 14th, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

Part I here.

Most of the time, when we discuss liturgy here at Cleansing Fire, it’s in reference to a certain abuse, a particularly tasteless occasion at Mass, or some irreverent incident taking place within the sanctuary, regardless as to whether it’s a part of Mass or not. We have devoted hundreds of posts on these matters, exposing countless acts of sacrilege and profanation alongside abuses that were more akin to one-time mistakes than malevolent and intentional disobedience. However, chronicling these events of the City of Bad Liturgy Done Well is only half (or even less than that) of what we, as Catholics, ought to be doing. And I don’t mean simply as a blog, as a parish, or even as a diocese – I mean universally.

While bad liturgy done well customarily betrays some political agenda (i.e. massive gender-neutral/race-neutral foam puppets at the Call to Action “Mass”), good liturgy done poorly betrays the exact opposite. Rather than the people of the parish having a clear mission, the inhabitants of this second city are complacent, knowing that they’re doing what is asked of them . . . nothing more, nothing less. While the abuses we witness in far too many places thrust the lance ever deeper into Our Lord’s Sacred Heart, those who are apathetic custodians of Truth are like those “disciples” who simply walked away from Calvary thinking to themselves, “Well, that was a wretched end.” It is regrettable that many of those who defend dignified worship simply give up on their mission when they bring about change in one Mass, one parish, or one priest. No, the mission before us to restore the liturgy to something beautiful is something which never wanes, never goes away in its pressing and undying necessity. Good for you, you have your Latin Mass. But does it have life and energy? Wonderful, you’re starting to sing Gregorian chant. Are you actually going to pursue its use at Mass? You should be commended for your piety at Mass, but does your catechesis end when you genuflect and walk out of church?

Good liturgy means absolutely nothing if we do not seek to find God in it, through the ceremony and devotion unfolding before us at Holy Mass. However, when good liturgy is done with the right spirit, not one of arrogance or conceit, but of praise and singular devotion to Our Lord and Our Lady, that is the pinnacle of human achievement. Seeing as how the Mass is the one place where humankind comes into contact in such a physical, undeniable way with God, it is our duty to make it seem that special. This being said, there is one caveat: make it special, yes, but do not make it special in our sight alone, but also in God’s. In a recent post at the Chant Cafe, Fr. Wadsworth says the following:

Another example may serve to illustrate how far we have deviated from the path (of genuine worship): I have deliberately removed any details which will enable you to identify where this Mass took place. Suffice to say, that it could reasonably have been witnessed in just about any large city in the English-speaking world. The occasion was a youth Mass involving a large number of young people of school and college age. The nature of the occasion meant that it would be reasonable to assume that the majority of those present were what could be described as practicing Catholics, at least in relation to the frequency of their liturgical life.

As the entrance procession began, so did the entrance song. It was sung by a male singer who accompanied himself on the guitar and he was joined by a female singer with a very nice voice. I did not know the song (something I have come to expect) but neither, it would seem, did anyone else and despite the text of the song being reproduced in the participation aid, the only ones singing were the two singers I have already described. The song was certainly religious in content without being noticeably liturgical or scriptural in its text. Musically it was entirely secular in character but skillfully sung and played in genuinely affecting manner. As this beginning to the liturgy unfolded, it became more and more obvious that this was a performance and we were cast in the role of the audience. This intimation was further confirmed as the song ended and it was greeted with enthusiastic and prolonged applause, curtailed only by the celebrant beginning the Sign of the Cross.

This experience was repeated at several subsequent moments in the Mass and notably during the Liturgy of the Word, at the Preparation of the Gifts and during the distribution of Holy Communion. Each time, the dynamics were those of performance and the liturgical assembly slid perceptibly into another mode but one clearly familiar to these young Catholics, that of the concert. At each subsequent moment, the pattern was repeated and the performance was recognized by applause. Am I the only person who is profoundly ill at ease with this, or can we identify that style, content and delivery all determine whether our music is truly liturgical or not? Once again, it would be a mistake to identify this difficulty with purely contemporary musical styles, I have witnessed much the same phenomenon with traditional liturgical music in some of our great churches and cathedrals.

This concert-mentality described by Fr. Wadsworth is exactly what we see in the City of Bad Liturgy Done Well. It’s catchy, it’s fun, it’s stimulating, but it’s not suitable for Mass. To reduce the Mass, the summit of human achievement, to a mere show, wherein the congregation has no life and no awareness of the Sacred Mysteries, is to lose touch with the immensity of the occasion.

And here we see the commonality between these two cities: there is a fundamental lack of understanding of the Holy Mass. On the one hand, the Mass is not some celebration of community – that’s what parades and festivals are for. On the other hand, the Mass is not just having a mastery of liturgical functions. Good Liturgy Done Poorly has lost just as many souls as Bad Liturgy Done Well, because the inhabitants of both cities are forced by their lords to thrive on a diet of gruel. It pains me just as much to see a “traditional” parish act with indifference as it does for me to see a parish act in blatant opposition to the will of the Church and Her Mystical Spouse. A lack of understanding is a lack of understanding, whether it’s trimmed in lace or festooned with rainbow ribbons. What the Church calls for, and what is demanded of us by God, is genuine devotion, as made manifest through dignified liturgy.

However, we ought to consider also the spirit in which these two liturgies are, for lack of a better word, “put on.” Both are unsuitable, for in the one is irreverence, and in the other is lukewarmness. But in the City of Bad Liturgy Done Well, there is a sense of unbridled arrogance. “This is what we want to do, so we’re going to do it.” This is, in my opinion, much more sinister than the mindset of inhabitants of the City of Good Liturgy Done Poorly. “Well, it’s good enough.” Nothing we can do is ever “good enough” for God, and the fact that some people are content simply to do the minimum is shameful indeed. Naturally, sometimes the bare minimum is all that’s possible. Maybe there’s not enough people. Maybe there’s not enough money or patrons. Maybe there’s just not enough “young blood” to get things done. That’s fine, and God knows that these people are doing their absolute best, much like how the woman who gave her last penny in the Gospel is praised by Our Lord, whereas the rich man who withheld his maximum donation was admonished. This can and ought to be applied to the liturgy.

When we have the ability to do great things for the glory of God, in humble obedience to the norms of Holy Mother Church, we are obligated by God and all that is decent and good in His world to render our greatest efforts to His people through dignified, reverent, and majestic liturgy. Apathy and complacency are not virtues, nor are they gifts or fruits of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, to see parishes sitting back without any care to excel “for the greater glory of God” is appalling. Is God not worth our every thought? Is He not worthy to receive our attention for all eternity? Can we not give Him His due for just one hour, and to do so in a way pleasing to Him and pleasing to His Church?

(Part III will be coming along shortly.)

First Mass of Father Scott B. Caton

June 13th, 2011, Promulgated by Bernie

The first Mass offered by newly ordained Father Scott Caton was the Mass of Pentecost celebrated yesterday, June 12, 2011, 4:00 PM, St. Michael’s Church, Rochester.

(Click onthe picture for a clearer image)

(left) Father Paul Gitau, (center) Father Caton, (right) Father Ronald Antinarelli

Pentecost

June 12th, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

VENI, Creator Spiritus,
mentes tuorum visita,
imple superna gratia
quae tu creasti pectora.
COME, Holy Spirit, Creator blest,
and in our souls take up Thy rest;
come with Thy grace and heavenly aid
to fill the hearts which Thou hast made.
Qui diceris Paraclitus,
altissimi donum Dei,
fons vivus, ignis, caritas,
et spiritalis unctio.
O comforter, to Thee we cry,
O heavenly gift of God Most High,
O fount of life and fire of love,
and sweet anointing from above.
Tu, septiformis munere,
digitus paternae dexterae,
Tu rite promissum Patris,
sermone ditans guttura.
Thou in Thy sevenfold gifts are known;
Thou, finger of God’s hand we own;
Thou, promise of the Father, Thou
Who dost the tongue with power imbue.
Accende lumen sensibus:
infunde amorem cordibus:
infirma nostri corporis
virtute firmans perpeti.
Kindle our sense from above,
and make our hearts o’erflow with love;
with patience firm and virtue high
the weakness of our flesh supply.
Hostem repellas longius,
pacemque dones protinus:
ductore sic te praevio
vitemus omne noxium.
Far from us drive the foe we dread,
and grant us Thy peace instead;
so shall we not, with Thee for guide,
turn from the path of life aside.
Per te sciamus da Patrem,
noscamus atque Filium;
Teque utriusque Spiritum
credamus omni tempore.
Oh, may Thy grace on us bestow
the Father and the Son to know;
and Thee, through endless times confessed,
of both the eternal Spirit blest.
Deo Patri sit gloria,
et Filio, qui a mortuis
surrexit, ac Paraclito,
in saeculorum saecula.
Amen.
Now to the Father and the Son,
Who rose from death, be glory given,
with Thou, O Holy Comforter,
henceforth by all in earth and heaven.
Amen.

A Tale of Two Masses – Part I:The City of Bad Liturgy Done Well

June 11th, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way.”

While Charles Dickens was most definitely not writing of Rochester when he published A Tale of Two Cities, there are certainly a great amount of parallels to be had, even in that oft-quoted first paragraph. Indeed, while Dickens was speaking of London and Paris as the “two cities” in his novel, we have two different “cities” before us. The first city is Bad Liturgy Done Well, and the second is Good Liturgy Done Poorly. Naturally, the “golden city,” that “heavenly Salem” I call Good Liturgy Done Well, needs no real discussion in this post. After all, it is the predominant theme of this site.

So what is this City of Bad Liturgy Done Well? It sounds like some kind of misnomer, maybe even an oxymoron. Alas, is is not. In truth, it seems that this is the city towards which the powers-that-be in the Diocese of Rochester constantly strive. Anyone who had the privilege to attend this morning’s ordination Mass at Sacred Heart can surely agree that no expense was spared to enhance the worship experience. A magnificent Festival Choir, a top-notch organist, stellar instrumentalists, and rhythmically-gifted bell-ringers all demonstrated that those in positions of authority at the Cathedral Community have a very clear vision of the liturgy. They recognize it as something special and set-apart, something deserving of a great deal of thought and effort.

Unfortunately, much of this thought and effort is misdirected. Rather turning liturgy into something both horizontal (the community of believers) and vertical (addressing the Divine), the liturgy stays flat, hugging the ground and afraid to soar beyond the realm of being, quite simply, a good musical performance. No one is debating that the music or general mood of the Mass was disingenuous or hollow. On the contrary, the Mass embodied the yearnings, strivings, and labors of many people whose lives are dedicated to the service of God and His Church. However, what Catholics must realize is that just because something sounds beautiful, or looks majestic, or makes us feel enriched or spiritually nourished, it doesn’t make it worthy of use at Mass. The Mass is not about our tastes or aesthetic inclinations. It transcends those, leaving all these personal desires and ideas within ourselves, and uniting them all under the vast and permanent mantle of the Church’s liturgical heritage.

So, quite simply, we must not treat the Mass as something dependent on us. On the contrary, we depend wholly on the Mass and, thus, on the priesthood. When we bend the Mass into a celebration of community, into a mere commemoration of a meal, we lose the richness of what the Church has built into the Mass for us. We may belt out beautiful hymns with gusto, and we may have fleets of well-trained servers, deacons, priests, etc., and we may have great numbers of professionals “making a joyful noise unto God,” but if we allow the Mass to reflect our desires, our opinions, and our inclinations, we lose focus. We gather at the table of the Lord, not because it’s an opportunity to have a parish meet-and-greet, or because it’s a chance to show off our Halloran All Saints pipe organ, but because He commanded us to do so. “Do this in memory of Me.” Notice, Our Lord commended us to do this, not to do something. The “this” to which He referred was the Passover seder, a highly ritualized ceremony in which there was no clapping, no dancing, no showing off of mortal capabilities. It was a profoundly intense service in which the presider left his personality at the door, a service wherein the participants do what is asked of them, not what they feel “called” to do.

The city of Bad Liturgy Done Well is one that looks beautiful, but whose foundations are rotten, and whose buildings are only shells whose elaborate exteriors mask the lifeless faith of the inhabitants whose only desire is to feel good and pull God down to our level, rather than aspire to raise ourselves to His. The citizens of this city are good, loving, Christian people, but they approach the liturgy from a flawed understanding of it. When we enter a church, we should be silent, in respect for the God who dwells in our tabernacles at His desire to do so. We are nothing, and no matter how glorious our celebrations may appear, they are nothing compared to the unrivaled splendor of the heavenly liturgy, of which even our most elaborate and solemn occasion is but a shadow.

This being said, the major flaw of this city is its lack of humility, its presumptions as to what is right and wrong. Again, just because something looks beautiful does not mean it actually is so in God’s sight. “He that rejects instruction, despises his own soul: but he that yields to reproof, possesses understanding. The fear of the Lord is the lesson of wisdom: and humility goes before glory” (Proverbs 15:33). It is humble to obey, and to obey is to endear oneself to God. Vainglory is not something that serves us well in the sanctuary. It serves only to divert our praise from Our Lord and redirect it to some perverted worship of our own abilities. Anything that draws attention to individuals as opposed to God should be re-evaluated as to its prayerfulness. That is one of the many benefits of having Mass “ad orientem,” with the priest and people facing the same direction. Even the most rubrically-unsound of our readers will have to admit that it is far less distracting to look at the back of someone’s head than the front. That isn’t high liturgy, folks, it’s just common sense.

(Part II should follow within the next few days.)

 

The Real Deal

June 5th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

Here are a few photographs from the Buffalo News of yesterday’s priestly ordination of Church of the Nativity parishioner, Deacon Dan Serbicki, for the Diocese of Buffalo. Congratulations, Dan. You are a priest forever!

Fr. Serbicki will offer Mass at Nativity on Pentecost Sunday (June 12th) at 10 AM.

There is also another Nativity parishioner preparing for the Catholic priesthood. Jason Hage is presently in second theology for the Diocese of Syracuse. Please keep both of these men in your prayers.

Fr. Enyan-Boadu has had to endure many trials in the Diocese of Rochester, including false accusations brought against him by a parish employee and the present uncertainty about his next assignment (one rumor has him serving as a sacramental minister under Nancy DeRycke), but he has a long-lasting legacy in these two young men. God bless you, Father!

In Defense of the Diaconate

June 2nd, 2011, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Instead of just weighing in on the earlier discussion regarding ordination of priests and deacons, the importance of each and the contrast of their roles, it seemed reasonable to start a separate thread.  Quite frankly, I was bothered, not by a right ordering of the roles of the ordained, but because it felt dismissive of the importance of the diaconate.

The Ordained:  To begin, only priests and deacons (both male) are ordained in the Catholic Church, no matter what the priestesses may think or wish.  Make-believe priestesses and other aspirants are not and never will have the indelible mark of real ordination.    Because of that indelible mark, both priests and deacons are different from the laity and deserve an extraordinary respect for their roles.  It doesn’t mean we agree with everything each does; indeed there is even good reason to count down the days to retirement of one or two in particular.  But just as we stand up when a judge enters the courtroom, out of respect for the law and for the responsibility of the judge’s role (even if we don’t particularly like the judge), so too there should be some special respect shown for both priests and deacons, above and beyond that which is normal for any lay roles, gratitude for their service.

Respect for Roles:  I can’t bring myself not to say “Father” no matter how intensely I might disagree with a priest on an issue or revile what he has done, so it also seems that deacons deserve the respect of being called “Deacon,”  and many are not.  Unfortunately, some folks see deacons as just being a male version of the priestesses, without the powers to consecrate the Eucharist or to forgive sin.  They are too often seen for what they cannot do, rather than for what they are called to do.  And among what they are permitted to do, including preaching and benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, presiding over baptisms and weddings, are many things that the priestesses crave and cannot have.  A right ordering of the roles of good deacons may help to avoid hijacking of their prerogatives by the unordained. 

"Martyrdom of St. Stephen" by Rembrandt

Historical Context:   A deacon’s ordination is not in conflict with Church teaching.  Rather, deacons fulfilled a very early role in the Church.  See ACTS Chapters 6 and 7.  The diaconate gives needed service to the people of God.  Furthermore, God bestowed a very special blessing on the diaconate when He allowed Deacon Stephen to be the first martyr.  God Himself anointed the diaconate with blood.  Faithful service in their roles, not in the role of a priest, can further anoint them with the humility to do their jobs well.  Women striving to be priests or deacons is as unseemly as a deacon taking on the aura of pseudo-priesthood.

Of course it is true that we have no Church without priests, no Eucharist and no forgiveness of sins, but nevertheless we are enriched by the role of the diaconate.  However, there seems to be an undercurrent in DoR that questions motives, and maybe not without some reason.  If the Deacon only shows up to strut in vestments in the sanctuary or to relieve the celebrant of things he should be doing, or to run administrative  interference for the pastor rather than serving souls,  it is understandable that people wouldn’t fully comprehend the deacon’s role.  

The Problems:  Unfortunately, over the years, I’ve met some deacons like that.  One outright told me that he refused to preach against abortion because it might “hurt someone’s feelings.”  Another showed up where I was sacristan and asked “Where’s the bread station?”  I said “We don’t have one.”  We went through three rounds of this exchange, before he said “You MUST have a place here  to stand to distribute communion.  Where is it?”  I said “A bread station is at a salad bar.  Yes, we do have a place where the Body of Christ is distributed; let me show you.”  A third deacon preached an objectionable homily about how Christ’s miracle of the loaves and fish was just exceptional oratory, getting people to open their lunch baskets and share.  Another parishioner and I met with him after Mass and expressed (gently I thought) our objection to that interpretation, mentioned that all the Gospels include the miracle, how it pre-figured the Eucharist, and how Jesus’ miracles shouldn’t be explained away, and people misled.  He announced to the pastor that he would never again return to our little church; and years later, apparently still smarting under the criticism, he is reported to use public meetings to throw a barb or two at those who met with him long ago.  AND, I believe he never did return.  So these were just a few of my unfortunate early experiences with deacons, up until a few years ago. 

The Serving:  I am not going to “name names” yet, as we know that praise for a good priest or good deacon can get them in trouble.  (One priest said to me:  “Thank you for the public compliment; boy, am I going to pay for THAT!)  Anyway, in the last few years I have come to deeply appreciate what a committed and faithful Deacon is able to do quietly and persistently in the Church, for the love of God’s people.  The theme is “service,” and that is exactly the theme for the original selecting of Deacons.   I do think we should notice them when they are ordained, respect and assist the work that they do in service, and address them properly.  And if they are not faithful to what Deacons are called to do, we should say so.  In that way we might contribute to keeping alive a role that the church does really need, exemplars of true service, and superior to all these lay pastoral administrator non-roles. 

The attention garnered (grasped?) by the priestesses has not only been at the expense of the priests, but also of the deacons.  For example, did you know that while the unordained priestesses were invited to Corning to participate in Convocation with the priests, the ordained deacons are not allowed to attend?  Why not?  Shouldn’t deacons be treated with even more respect than the make-believe, priest-wannabee feminist laity?

Signs of Service:  This past weekend, with very little notice, at least  one deacon I know (I hope there were many others) mobilized the signing of petitions to the State Assembly against the consideration of abortion to the 9th month of pregnancy.  Does anybody know how many priestesses did that?  Just wondering.  God bless the deacons who come to serve.  Their service in no way undermines or replaces that of priests, but still should be highly valued.

In my opinion, with over 100 deacons in the DoR, there is no reason why any lay woman pastoral administrator should be running anything.  She should at least be reporting to a deacon to provide oversight.

In Support of True Diversity

June 1st, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

Oftentimes, people associate orthodoxy or faithfulness to the teachings of the Church (especially as pertaining to liturgy) with being hostile towards diversity. The claims are made that Jesus would want everyone to have a part at His Eucharistic Table, and that if we care too much about rules and regulations, we lose the spirit of what He intended us to have. Indeed, those who say or profess such things are surely doing so because they are being motivated by a love for the Church, albeit a flawed and underdeveloped love which focuses more on honey-sweet sentiment than lasting spiritual edification. I would like to devote this post to answering their claims that Catholics in support of dignified liturgy are cold, unfeeling, and closed-minded individuals who care only for keeping the status-quo.

Mass in Hong Kong

No one can possibly deny that the Church is truly diverse – just look at Her list of saints! We have some saints murdered in Nazi concentration camps, whereas others are holy nuns who never left their Medieval cloisters. We have missionaries from Vietnam alongside Tudor-era Englishwomen who sheltered young Jesuits from Elizabethan authorities. However, throughout all of these holy lives, there is a  common thread, something tethering each one to the others. That thread, and a golden thread at that, is the Holy Mass. For the greater part of two millenia, the Mass as prayed in Korea was the Mass as prayed in Rome, and the Mass as prayed in the trenches of Flanders in WWI was the Mass as prayed by African missionaries. A 13th Century Dutch cloth merchant could, without any hesitation or confusion, realize what the Mass was even if he were to see a 19th Century Mass offered in some backwater town in America. The Church celebrated its diversity through celebrating its singular unity.

However, since the 1970′s, the notion of celebrating our diversity became confused with celebrating our cultural identity. In the confusion which gripped (and grips) the Church in the post-Conciliar years, every group, every nationality, every ethnicity, every age-group, and every social-body felt the need . . . I’m sorry . . . felt “called by the Spirit” . . . to have their own Mass. The Mass became, not so much a unifying sacrifice of love, but a means to asserting cultural, social, and ethnic identity.

Sacrosanctum Concillium states the following regarding diversity through the Holy Mass:

D) Norms for adapting the Liturgy to the culture and traditions of peoples

37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples (note: “talents” are not “mediocrities.” Marty Haugen, this means you.). Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact (The important thing here is that SC recognizes the possibility of error in local liturgical celebrations. It does not say that the error should be tolerated or left in place, but rather, if possible, corrects it. If it is already correct, then, if possible, it may be introduced into or kept in that region’s liturgies.). Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit. (For the “true and authentic spirit” of the liturgy, click here.)

38. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands (Sacred Heart Cathedral probably doesn’t count . . . ), provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.

39. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution. (Again, this section of SC is dealing with those few and extra-ordinary times when things may be changed with the liturgy. It is in no way stating that the norms it sets forth, i.e. Latin, Gregorian Chant, etc. are to become de facto second choices.)

40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

(This is not aimed at milk-toast SSJ’s or diversity-minded local ordinaries and their white-albed henchmen/henchwomen/henchpeople. Rather, it is written for those people who have limited understanding  of or access to the Church, such as those Pacific Islanders who until the past few decades were still head-hunters, or those Christians in Muslim-controlled areas whose worship situations are less than ideal.)

While this does leave room for cultural deviations, it does so under the assumption that these cultural deviations will occur organically, i.e. an “African Mass” ought to happen in Africa, not upstate New York. However, there are those who, blinded by zeal for their Church, read these documents and fail to apply the “spirit of the law” to the “letter of the law.” It’s rather amusing to see liturgical liberals will point at many of us and say “you’re too by-the-book” and yet they use this unbending “by-the-book” approach to liturgy to justify their antics at Mass. The spirit of the documents of Vatican II is one of loving acceptance for all the children of God, and recognizes that the Roman Rite has many different forms and manifestations. However, this open-endedness does not permit illicit acts to take the place of approved liturgical actions. A parent may very well hand his or her child the keys to the family car. The parent assumes that the child will drive wherever he wants, but will do his best to stay on the road . . . a noble, lofty goal, to be sure. However, when the son backs up into the lawn of a neighbor and destroys her prize-winning roses, you don’t justify it with any of those phrases some in our midst throw out with nauseating frequency. “I felt called to do it.” “It didn’t hurt anyone, so it’s okay.” “There’s no law saying you can’t do it . . . just that it’s not preferable.”

Latin Mass in Gabon

At Vatican II, the Church gave her children the keys to the family car, often to ruinous effect. While in the little analogy above, the only thing that was lost was a bed of roses, in real life we have lost entire parishes of souls. God does not desire our pursuit of diversity to alienate people – it must unify.

To that end, we should try to figure out what unifies and what segregates us as Catholics. When I go to Mass at Sacred Heart, and I am presented with a “Lamb of God” which incorporates every language known to man (except Latin – dear God, we mustn’t use that language!), I’m somewhat at a loss for words. Are we really going to sing a verse in Tagalog, for the one Philippino fellow in attendance, and who probably knows either Spanish or English already? If I were attending a Mass being offered for the Phillipino community, I would wholly expect to encounter Tagalog . . . but not when 90% of the congregation is well-acquainted with English. We must be sensitive to cultural demands, and to celebrate cultural identities. This doesn’t mean that we need to invent diversity just for the sake of having it. If it exists, wonderful. If it doesn’t, fine. Just recognize it either way and cater your liturgy to those demands.

But what about when you have a multi-cultural gathering, such as the annual Chrism Mass, or maybe a cluster’s only Easter Vigil or Holy Thursday Mass? If only there were one language that the Church used to bring together all of Her children, no matter what language may be their native one . . .

Oh, wait . . . Vatican II covered that bit, too:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

 

101. 1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.

Isn’t it funny how the same documents used to strip churches of their altars, statues, tabernacles, chant, ceremony, and Latin are the same documents that instruct the faithful to keep all these same things?

 

Priestly Narcissism

May 31st, 2011, Promulgated by Diane Harris
 
Recently, we did a Newsletter review of the article “Messing with the Mass” by Paul and Daniel Vitz, published in the November 2007 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review.  It is an excellent article, which is well worth re-reading, given its application to so many distressing issues in DoR.  You can find the article on-line at:
 
Review / Summary of Vitzes’ Article:
 
The authors cite Christopher Lasch’s emphasis of the decline of a“sense of historical time as disconnecting from the past, and the rejection of the future too, leading to the “self” becoming “the absolute center” of values and pre-occupation.  “Such an attitude is a form of idolatry,” allowing the “present moment to dominate consciousness.”   Then Christianity becomes an “embarrassment,” and “judged as having no future.”  “Preoccupation with the ‘now’ and narcissism go hand in hand.”  The authors also analyze the morphing in the new age from the self-actualization of Rogers and Maslow to a kind of “spiritual narcissism,” of the type: “When I pray, I pray to myself.”  (Perhaps like the righteous Pharisee in the Temple?)   
 
“Since Vatican II the Mass has fallen victim to various kinds of irregularities.  We will examine a previously neglected aspect of the situation — namely, the psychological reasons   motives.  We propose that the primary motivation … derives from underlying narcissistic motives – that is, extreme self-love … basic anti-Christian … significance of contemporary cultural narcissism … applied to the psychology of many American priests.” 
 
 The authors state: “…we can see deeply rooted psychological motives behind the American priests who ‘individualize’ the Masses they celebrate, placing their ‘personal stamp’ on the liturgy”… to make the Divine Liturgy conform to their own tastes and views.”  
 
The authors  give five signs of priestly narcissism, noting that just two are sufficient for the characterization of narcissistic:  
 

1. Requires excessive admiration; with this comes extreme sensitivity to criticism.

2. A sense of entitlement, of unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment and of automatic compliance by others with one’s suggestions and expectations; e.g.: “Rules don’t apply to me.”

3. A belief that they are superior, special or unique and expect others to recognize this; that they should only associate with other people who are special or of high status.

4. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors and attitudes.  At times priests show this in their liturgical style, emphases or innovation…they assume the right to change the liturgy.

5. A lack of empathy, an unwillingness to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others … contempt or anger toward those who are offended by changes in the liturgy — often changes that have no real canonical support.

“This secular spirit … was explicitly self-indulgent and self-aggrandizing.  The rationale of those who “personalize” the liturgy … clearly … rejects the Church’s history and tradition … by those who should be most closely wedded to the Church – priests.”…The common contemporary focus on being “relevant” is a straightforward articulation of making the Mass focus on the “now” with a serious neglect of where the Mass came from and where it is leading us.  To be relevant is to be involved in the present rather than serving as a fixed reference point. … “The ‘now’ is … an expression of narcissistic preoccupation.”… Ego Renewal. 

The authors go on to criticize applause in the Mass (as Pope Benedict has done) as modeling the Mass on show business and public demonstrations of emotional support at the expense of Christ and an attitude of reverence. They warn of narcissism among the congregation as well as the priest, even leading to narcissism … bordering on heresy, … almost presenting the Mass as “a concelebration of the assembled faithful themselves rather than a concelebration of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.”  They remark about “a growing sense that the music at Mass is more a performance than anything else.” 

   In “The Spirit of the Liturgy,” then Cardinal Ratzinger writes:

    “Only respect for the liturgy’s fundamental unspontaneity and pre-existing identity can give us what we hope for: the feast in which the great reality comes to us that we ourselves do not manufacture but receive as a gift…. The life of the liturgy does not come from what dawns upon the minds of individuals and planning groups … it is God’s descent upon our world, the source of real liberation.” 

Solemn Vespers at St. Anne Church – Rochester, NY

May 26th, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

Here is a video of the recent Solemn Vespers service held at St. Anne Church on May 22. It certainly looks and sounds like an amazing event, one which I hope to see emulated in other parishes around the Diocese. Remember, the laity are called by the Church to participate fully in Her Liturgy of the Hours (or Divine Office, etc.) – by praying Vespers, or Lauds, or any of the other hours of the Office, you are linking yourself, not only to the entire Church on Earth, but the Church in Heaven as well.

(Video courtesy of Bernie.)

Music to Our Ears?

May 25th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

The following comes from Fr. William Laird, pastor of St. Katharine Drexel:

If the chant is any good, and void of “inclusive language,” this could be a great initiative!

Solemn Vespers – Tomorrow at 5:00 PM

May 21st, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

I promised a reminder a few days ago, so here it is:

Solemn Vespers tomorrow, Sunday May 22, at 5:00 PM at St. Anne Church. Fr. Alexander Bradshaw will be presiding, with Fr.’s Michael Mayer and Edison Tayag assisting. The service will include Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, so please do avail yourselves of this extremely special event! The evening will feature Gregorian chant and Renaissance polyphony, along with an organ repertoire spanning five centuries. Our very own Mike was present for the last service, and took the photos you see here.

So, if you’re free tomorrow evening and haven’t been raptured, go to St. Anne Church for Solemn Vespers. Something tells me you’ll be glad you did.

Some of you might be asking yourselves, “So what exactly are ‘Solemn Vespers?’” Essentially, it’s the Church’s official time for evening prayer. Indeed, for those of you who pray the current Liturgy of the Hours, many of your editions probably use the words “Evening Prayer” instead of Vespers, just to make things a little less complicated should the laity pray this beautiful treasure of the Church. Vespers in this case are a little different from what you may have experienced in your own parishes or prayer groups. For instance, there are five psalms in the Extraordinary Form, whereas in the Ordinary Form there are three. However, aside from the number of psalms and the locations of different prayers, the old and the new forms of Vespers are pretty much the same.

At the Second Vatican Council, the Church stated that praying the Divine Office (or Liturgy of the Hours, etc.) is wholly commendable and desirable, that it “may pervade and penetrate the whole of Christian prayer, giving it life, direction and expression and effectively nourishing the spiritual life of the people of God .” Pope Paul VI was speaking here specifically about the reformed prayer of the Church after Vatican II. However, through His Holiness Pope Benedict’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, it was been made clear that both the old and new versions of the Divine Office are precious and integral to the life of the Church. For this reason, it is the duty of our clerics and the prerogative of our laity to participate actively, fully, and reverently in this aspect of the Church’s liturgical life. So do your best to attend what is sure to be a beautiful service.

Solemn Vespers – May 22, 5:00 PM – St. Anne Church, Rochester, NY 14620

On a side note, St. Anne is also hosting a flower show and barbeque dinner that evening. It might be worth it to attend, seeing as how you would nourish your souls and your stomachs!

(Thank you to our readers who keep us informed about such things. We’re all very grateful.)

The Role of Women in the Church

May 19th, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

Fr. Christopher Smith shares his insights on this matter at the Chant Cafe. The entire article is very articulate, and certainly deserves your perusal. Here, though, is the closing paragraph.

When we look at the women in the New Testament, we get an idea of what women’s participation in the life of the Church and the liturgy should look like. As equal members of the Body of Christ, they had no need of ordination to worship God, or to do the amazing things that they did. And those things were often more remarkable, and had more staying power, than what the Twelve did. The constant close attention of the women in the Gospel to Christ and to others, serving them and in doing so, serving Christ. It is entirely correct to say that a woman’s place in the Church is one of subordination, just as all disciples freely subordinate themselves to love God and all people. A woman’s place in the Church is to follow Christ, lavish her love without cost upon Him, serve the needs of the poor and the defenseless: in other words, a subordination to the law of love. In doing so, women can find that they are not indeed slaves to an outmoded patriarchal system drunk on abuses of power and justice, but friends of Christ. And there can be no greater freedom and noble role in the Church and world than that!

Instruction Coming on Extraordinay Form

May 12th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

The oft-rumored and long-delayed instruction related to issues administering the Holy Father’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificim will be released this Friday. For those unaware, Summorum Pontificum was the Pope’s way of freeing many of the restrictions on the celebration of the Church’s Traditional Latin Mass, so that priests everywhere can celebrate this form of the liturgy without the prior permission of their bishop. We still only have one Extraordinary Form Mass in the Diocese of Rochester, but hopefully as more traditional younger men are ordained to the priesthood in this diocese, the number of available EF Masses will grow.

See here.

Solemn Vespers – May 22nd, 5:00 PM at St. Anne

May 11th, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

A reader alerts us to an upcoming Vespers service to be held at St. Anne Church on May 22nd at 5:00 PM. Do your best to go! Mark your calendars! Fr. Alexander Bradshaw is scheduled to be the presider, with Fr.’s Mayer and Tayag serving as the two assistants. The evening will feature a mix of Gregorian Chant, Renaissance Polyphony, and some congregational hymns. The service will conclude with Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

We will remind you of this again between now and then.

“How Gregorian Chant Can Change the World”

May 10th, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

A nod of the miter goes to Roma Locuta Est for the following article, which expresses in a succinct and articulate manner the correct end of the liturgical music debate.

Last week National Public Radio ran a story called “Narcissism on Rise in Pop Music Lyrics.” It opened up with,

“On this very day in 1985, the number one song on the Billboard Top 100 was…’We Are the World’ (‘We are the world. We are the children.’) Fast-forward to 2007 when Timbaland’s ‘Give It to Me’ featuring Nelly Furtado topped the charts: ‘…love my a$$ and my abs in the video for “Promiscuous.” My style is ridiculous.’
“So more than two decades ago, we were holding hands and swaying to a song of unity, and these days, we’re bouncing to pop stars singing about how fabulous they are. Psychologist Nathan DeWall has had the pleasure of listening to it all for research, and he found that lyrics in pop music from 1980 to 2007 reflect increasing narcissism in society. And DeWall is an associate psychology professor at the University of Kentucky.”

Dr. DeWall proceeded to explain:

“I was listening to a song that, really, one of my favorite bands, Weezer, had on one of their albums recently, and it’s called ‘The Greatest Man That Ever Lived,’ and I kept wondering, who would actually say that out loud? ‘I am the greatest man that ever lived. I was born to give and give and give.’
“The ironic thing is it’s a song about how I’m the greatest person in the world, but it’s to the tune of ‘Tis A Gift To Be Simple,’ which is a song about humility. And so what I wanted to do, instead of relying on self-report measures of personality like narcissism, I wanted to actually go into our culture, our cultural products, which are tangible artifacts of our cultural environment. And so, for that, I thought maybe song lyrics would be a very good jumping-off spot.
“What we found over time is that there’s an increasing focus on me and my instead of we and our and us. So, for example, instead of talking about love being between we and us and us finding new things together, it’s mostly about how, you know, for example, Justin Timberlake in 2006 said, ‘I’m bringing sexy back. Yeah. Them other boys don’t know how to act. Yeah.’”

There is no doubt that DeWall is correct. Pop music is becoming more narcissistic. The broader, age old question is: Does art imitate life, or does life imitate art? The answer is probably some of both. Our culture is increasingly narcissistic. In the spirit of the NPR article, which was about music, I wish to propose a possible antidote for narcissism: the liturgy, specifically liturgical music.

Unfortunately, we must first distinguish between music that might be heard in any given liturgy and liturgical music, properly speaking. While the Catholic Church has been plagued with bad versions of the four-hymn sandwich for decades, the fact remains that Holy Mother Church has given us a liturgical hymnbook: The Graduale Romanum, In this book, one will find the ancient Gregorian chants. But what many will be surprised to find is that the Church has given us specific chants for every Sunday of the year in the places that we currently sing “hymns.” For any given Mass, there are prescribed chants for the Introit (think here of the “Opening Hymn” you are used to hearing), the Gradual (“Responsorial Psalm”), the Offertorio (“Offertory”), and the Communio (“Communion Song”). Most of these date back more than a thousand years. Of course, in the Graduale Romanum, one will find the chant written in Latin. However, vernacular versions of these exist. What is key is that the liturgical rubrics, while they permit hymns, call for a preference given to these chants. Vatican II itself held that the Gregorian chant tradition should enjoy a “pride of place” in our liturgies.

Why do I see this as an antidote for narcissism? The surest way to deal with this problem is to give people the sense that they are not the center of reality, nor are they the source. The Cartesian turn to the subject has flipped classical metaphysics on its head so that people come to view reality as what is in their own minds rather than what their minds encounter on the outside. The liturgy is a reality that is given to us, not one that is created by us. In fact, it is in the liturgy itself that we find our own fulfillment. When we go to Mass, we participate in reality itself, something that is much bigger than us. If we see the Liturgy as something that we fit into rather than something that fits into our lives, we can come to understand that we are not the center of reality: God is.

The problem is, as has been observed on several observations over the past decade, there is an increasing narcissism even within the liturgy itself: both priests and people come to think that the liturgy is something that can be created and recreated with the fickle winds of changing culture. In fact, the lack of narcissistic language in the new translation of the Roman Missal has been pointed out in comparison with the current, defective translation. Currently, there are several places in the texts that seem to order God to do certain things and to give a primacy to the people over the divine. The new translation, being more faithful to the Latin, has sought to correct many of these errors. What remains to be fixed is the same problem in the hymns that are often chosen for Sunday worship. Many of the modern hymns focus on man rather than God (think here of “Gather Us In,” or the ever-elusive “Sing a New Church Into Being”). Quite simply, these hymns are self-centered rather than God-centered.

Contrast this with the use of the Graduale Romanum. These chants have been given to us by the Church, each carefully constructed around sacred texts in order to serve as a sort of lectio divina for the readings of the day. Indeed, when Gregorian chant is properly performed, it seems as if it is not of this world. Part of that is due to the inherent structure of the music, for chant lacks a strict meter (though it has an internal rhythm of its own). Unlike a hymn, which marches forward towards a climactic conclusion, chant allows the listener to rest in contemplation, a mirror of the eternity which we, God willing, will experience someday. But another part is due to the words, which become primary (unlike modern pop music, where the words are often a later add-on to an already existing rhythm/chord structure).

Perhaps the most important point, however, is the fact that the music of the Mass inevitably (forgive the pun) sets the tone of the entire celebration. It stands to reason, then, if we employ a music that is provided for us by the Church (not to mention encouraged by the rubrics), then the people will better understand that the liturgy itself is given and not created. If they come to understand the liturgy, which is the objective center of reality, in this manner, then they will come to see that they are not the center of reality. Thus, my rapid fire, probably incomplete, but hopefully coherent, argument that an antidote for the rise in narcissism is Gregorian Chant. Save the liturgy, save the world.